dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oil And Gas

(b)(6)
DATE: 
lQCT 1 0 2014 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S .C. § ll53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F .R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
r lJ~:~trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, initially approved the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition. Upon further review, the director determined that the petition had been 
approved in error. The director properly served the petitioner with a notice of intent to revoke, and 
subsequently revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before us at the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(2) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business. At 
the time she filed the petition, the petitioner was an unconventional gas footprint reduction lead for 
~ Subsequently, in response to the director's notice of intent to 
revoke the approval of the petition, the petitioner stated that she is an "independent consultant working 
for a specific oil producer now." The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification , is in the national interest of the United States. The director did 
not dispute that the petitioner qualifies for the classification sought, but found that the petitioner has not 
established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the 
United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a legal brief. Attorney represented the petitioner at 
the time she filed the appeal on February 7, 2014, and prepared the appellate brief that we received on 
March 10, 2014. Later, on March 26, 2014, the Executive Office for Immigration Review suspended 
Mr. from practicing before the Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, we cannot 
recognize Mr. as the petitioner's attorney of record at this time. The appellate brief will receive 
due consideration, but we consider the petitioner to be self-represented in this proceeding. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, 
for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him 
under section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of 
Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, . .. this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted , would warrant a denial of 
the visa petition based upon the petitioner 's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient cause 
for the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke an immigrant petition. !d. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step in 
the visa application process. The beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an 
immigrant visa. Jd. at 589. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director, in the revocation notice, stated that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. In tenns of available immigration benefits, there is no 
functional difference between that classification and the classification that the petitioner sought as an 
alien of exceptional ability. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), 
states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible , although clearly 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dep't a/Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215,217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, aliens of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not 
exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks classification as 
an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that 
alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on August 2, 2012. An 
introductory statement set forth the claim of eligibility for the national interest waiver: 
[The petitioner] has developed a highly specialized yet broad spectrum niche within 
the energy development field, specifically not just petroleum recovery but 
Unconventional Oil Recovery (UOR) methods . ... 
A review of her resume shows that she has had senior leadership responsibilities since 
at least 1996 .... 
The attached materials indicate [that the petitioner] has many demonstrable 
achievements in her field .... 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
NYSDOT ... [requires that] an applicant must show a history of demonstrable 
achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
"Some" degree of influence is certainly less than "major" or even "significant" 
influence. 
In any event the clear meaning of this portion of NYSDOT is to preclude persons 
who have graduated with an advanced degree but have done nothing else. It is not 
designed to exclude any other category of applicant. ... The Service in this regard is 
respectfully requested to take into account applicant's accomplishments ... [which] 
have had some effect on the field individually but also in sum .... (T]he conclusion is 
inescapable that this applicant has had some degree of influence on the field based on 
the clear tenor of the testimonials submitted . . .. It is respectfully submitted that the 
requirement of "some influence" means more than "no influence" and is not 
comparable to the significant contribution standard of an EB 1 extraordinary ability 
case . 
. . . NYSDOT excludes persons fresh out of graduate school and allows flexibility as 
to all other applicants. Applicant has had some as opposed to no influence on the 
field and thus is not subject to denial on that ground. Applicant has shown that his 
[sic] work will have intrinsic merit, will be national in scope and that he [sic] is 
substantially more qualified than the majority of his [sic] peers. 
(Emphasis in original.) The above assertions concern a footnote in NYSDOT, which reads, in part: 
The alien ... clearly must have established, in some capacity, the ability to serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of his or her 
colleagues. The Service [now US CIS] here does not seek a quantified threshold of 
experience or education, but rather a past history of demonstrable achievement with 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole .... In all cases the petitioner must 
demonstrate specific prior achievements which establish the alien's ability to benefit 
the national interest. 
Id. at 219 n.6. NYSDOT elsewhere states: "Because , by statute, 'exceptional ability' is not by itself 
sufficient cause for a national interest waiver, the benefit which the alien presents to his or her field 
of endeavor must greatly exceed the 'achievements and significant contributions' contemplated in 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F)." Id. at 219. Taken as a whole, the NYSDOT decision 
does not indicate that minuscule influence on the field, however limited, always necessarily suffices 
to establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. Furthermore , the first quoted passage from 
NYSDOT specifies that the influence must be "on the field as a whole." Therefore, influence on a 
particular group or within one corporation does not meet the standard of "influence on the field as a 
whole." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The initial submission included a 24-page statement, dated May 1, 2012, with the petitioner's 
digitally reproduced signature. The petitioner stated: 
I ... qualify for permanent residence as a foreign national of Exceptional Ability in 
Oil and Natural Gas Production Optimization, with emphasis on "Unconventional Oil 
Recovery" CUOR) Methods in Extra Heavy Oil Fields. I also have extensive 
experience in Well Design/Completion/Optimization/Stimulation, Drilling & 
Workover operations ... . 
I have 20+ years of professional experience at the service of the hydrocarbons 
industry . .. , working at the helm of many critical projects in the oil and natural gas 
sector, worldwide. I am widely recognized for my creativity, technical ability and 
unique talent to significantly increase oil well productivity levels of any organization 
in the energy industry. . . . 
Throughout the whole length of my professional career, I have always been at the 
forefront of key projects, mostly at the service of - the second 
largest private sector energy corporation in the world, and third largest overall. ... 
Presently, I occupy the high-ranking position of Unconventional Gas Footprint 
Reduction Lead for , responsible to promote best practice sharing of engineering 
solutions to reduce project footprints for shale/tight-gas and light-tight oil ventures. 
In addition, I advise on unconventional gas for newly available technology aiding in 
better environmental protection . .. . 
In my prior position as Grosmont Development Leader, I was responsible 
for developing and maintaining the Asset Development Plan for the Grosmont 
Carbonate resource, which cover [sic] the integration of research and development 
and technical design information from the Production and Technology organization. I 
was also in charge of overseeing the development of the commercial scenario 
business model and establishing the economic framing of the opportunity . ... 
I am internationally recognized as an Oil & Gas Production Optimization Expert with 
renowned expertise in groundbreaking Oil & Natural Gas Well Development 
Techniques .... 
Likewise, I am also recognized as a Pioneer in the planning and development of 
technology pilots for de-risking "Unconventional Oil Recovery" (UOR) Methods . 
As one of the few experts in the field of Well Development Methodologies, and with 
such ... extensive experience in the optimization of oil production operations, and 
the capacity to take on all structural aspects involved in the oil and gas arena; I have 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
accurately led turnkey engineering projects that have reached acclaimed levels of 
productivity and effective profit tum-around, domestically and internationally. 
(Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.) The petitioner claimed authorship of "several Technical 
Papers," and identified two "samples of [her] written work." The word "samples" implies that other 
papers exist, but the petitioner did not identify or submit them. The two identified conference papers 
both date from 2002; there is no evidence that the petitioner continues to produce published or 
presented works. In terms of citation of her work, the petitioner identified two conference papers 
(both from 2004) and two patents, but she did not submit copies of the papers or other evidence of 
the claimed citations. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings . Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
Six letters accompanied the petition. Five of the writers are current or former officials of various 
entities within The sixth, is a senior finance manager at 
. part of the Ms. 
stated: 
I have known [the petitioner] in a professional capacity since o:hP. w~<: ~nnoint e cl a<: 
Senior Subsurface Advisor in Non-Operated Joint Ventures for 
... back in [the] year 2002 . ..__....J 
In this role, [the petitioner] was the primary technical liaison between and 
. 
. . for matters pertaining to reservoir management, 
production enhancement , completion design, well intervention and well work-over 
projects .... 
[The petitioner] was instrumental in promoting within the organization many 
[of] best practices bringing about spectacular business performance in this 
Joint Venture .... Her expertise ... enabled the joint venture to enhance total daily 
oil production from the nine mature, offshore oil fields where had a shareholder 
interest, by an average [of] 25%. This success was propelled even further by [the 
petitioner's] capability to provide strong technical, subsurface advice and support in 
identifying opportunities for infill drilling in fields such as and 
J all of which would ultimately lead to increase development reserves by up to 
10%.0 0 0 
[The petitioner] spearheaded a number of other technology initiatives for production 
enhancement within this venture such as introducing the use of a sonic stimulation 
tool for cleaning down-hole gravel-pack completions , through-tubing perforating, 
gas-lift optimization, and well re-completions using hydraulic work-over units. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
I can confirm that [the petitioner] is one of the best talents that has witnessed in 
the past 20 years. I personally consider her an outstanding Senior Production 
Engineer with highly specialized skills in production technology, completion design, 
well performance modeling both in conventional oil and gas production, as well as 
unconventional hydrocarbon resource development. 
[The petitioner] started out as a well-site petroleum engineer working on offshore rigs 
where her role was to provide subsurface expertise to the drilling crew while 
simultaneously supervising drilling fluids engineers, mud loggers, logging engineers 
and directional drilling engineers on-board the rig. She was the first woman 
petroleum engineer ever to be entrusted with this responsibility in her native country 
of Malaysia following which she advanced into the role of Assistant Drilling 
Supervisor. ... 
While working in the Netherlands , [the petitioner] designed, planned and flawlessly 
executed fracture stimulation jobs in an effort to boost gas production from wells with 
declining productivity. Her most notable success was the implementation of a 
multiple, fracture stimulation design in a horizontal gas well which resulted in 
production rates 300% higher than what had been traditionally obtained from a 
vertical well. 
Mr. described various projects in which the petitioner has participated. He asserted, for 
example, that the petitioner "pioneer[ed] the implementation of 'Solid Expandable Tubulars' [SET] 
to increase production from carbonate gas fields by an unprecedented 30%," and claimed that one of 
the petitioner 's 2002 conference papers "has since become a 'Go-To' Technical reference for 
countless ... engineers in her same field of work. It is worth mentioning that presently ' SET' is a 
widely sought after equipment applied in Well Desi n for drilling deep wells, well integrity 
maintenance and production enhancement." Mr. concluded that the petitioner "is a true 
genius in her field of work" and "a member of a privileged group with rarely seen talents and 
invaluable skills." 
Dr. former vice nr.esident of Research and Engineering and now a senior 
consu tant for stated that the petitioner "rapidly gained . 
. . recognition 
among her peers for her unique expertise, not only in well completion design, but also in managing 
research and development technology pilots and projects." 
value improvement and risk manager for Colorado and Canadian projects at 
asserted that the petitioner "pioneered several conceptual designs for heater wells, steam injectors, 
production wells and observation wells," and "has 
received industry recognition in her lead roles." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 9 
manager of human resources process, remuneration, and benefits at 
stated that the petitioner "has consistently excelled in planning and executing field 
activities aimed 
at maximizing well productivity. Her expertise in selecting well perforating 
techniques and equipment for specialized operations such as fracture stimulation and additional 
perforating cam aigns have led to unprecedented levels of production enhancement in mature gas 
fields." Ms. asserted that the petitioner "has successfully published a myriad of technical 
journals ," but she identified only the same two papers named in the petitioner's own statement. She 
also identified three papers and/or patents that, she claimed, cited the petitioner's work; but her 
statement does not confirm the existence of the citations or show that the petitioner has written more 
than two papers. 
now vice president of technical services at was 
formerly the research and development production technology manager for 
He stated that the petitioner "proved to be in great demand whereby multiple project 
managers would request [the petitioner] to work on their respective teams." 
The director approved the petition on November 5, 2012. Subsequently, on October 30, 2013, the 
director issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the petition. The director acknowledged 
the intrinsic merit and national scope of the petitioner's occupation, but found that she had not 
demonstrated "a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole." 
The director stated that a search using the Google Scholar search engine showed three citations of 
one of the petitioner's identified papers, and no citations of the other. The director stated that the 
low number of citations "lessens credibility regarding the impact of her work in the field at large, 
aside from the petitioner's employer." The director described the letters submitted with the petition, 
and noted that all of the writers "directly worked with the petitioner," such that their knowledge of 
her work is not evidence of wider influence. The director concluded: "The evidence of record does 
not establish (i) how the petitioner has influenced the field as a whole aside from her employer; (ii) 
how she has been primarily responsible for the success of the projects she worked on; and (iii) how 
she impacted the field to a greater extent than others in the field." 
In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted a statement that repeated the assertion that the 
petitioner need only show "more than 'no influence,"' and that the citation of one of her papers is, by 
itself, sufficient to show that she "has had some, more than zero, influence." As discussed above, 
NYSDOTs reference to "some influence," out of context from the rest of the decision, does not 
compel the approval of every petition wherein the foreign worker has had "more than 'no 
influence."' 
The petitioner also submitted background materials regarding hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," 
including a published column from the executive director of the calling for 
tighter regulation to minimize environmental impact. These materials establish the importance of 
the issue and the controversy surrounding fracking, but they do not mention the petitioner's work or 
show how she has influenced the field. The petitioner claimed to be among "[ o ]nly a handful of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 10 
experts in the world ... [who] have the skills, abilities, and knowledge to ultimately help Energy 
Corporations to successfully design oil and gas production procedures and facilities to tackle the ... 
challenging tasks [described in the background materials], while optimizing the nation's own 
resources." 
The etitioner submitted an advisory letter from _ president of -~ 
Mr. stated that innovations by personnel "become adopted throughout the 
industry," but this is a general assertion rather than a specific showing of widespread adoption of the 
petitioner's work. Regarding the petitioner, Mr. stated: 
One of the areas in which [the petitioner] is a leader is Solid Expandable Tubulars 
(SET) design engineering which has great importance to the industry. This is a new 
technology that allows the industry to drill and complete wells that were previously 
not possible. . . . Additionally [the petitioner] is an innovating pacesetter in 
Unconventional Gas Footprint Reduction design. A topic of great concern in our 
industry is that of recovery of hydrocarbons from the reservoir, with the least 
environmental impact. ... This is an area where [the petitioner) has had a great deal 
of individual input benefiting her employers and our industry. It is my professional 
opinion that she has had influence on the field of Unconventional Gas Footprint 
Reduction design in a more than nominal way. 
Mr. asserted that it is misguided to judge the importance and influence of technical papers 
by their citation figures, because such papers influence the field in other ways. Mr. 
discussed the same two papers that Ms. and the petitioner herself had previously identified. 
He did not claim to know about additional papers. Regarding citation figures, the petitioner had 
originally implied that her papers were heavily cited. Following the issuance of the notice of intent 
to revoke, the petitioner has retreated from that claim, with Mr. asserting that citations are 
not particularly important in her field. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter ofCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Jd. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USC IS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also Matter ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 165. 
In this instance, Mr. letter does not directly address the issues raised in the notice of intent 
to revoke. Mr. made claims of fact (rather than expert opinion) that the record does not 
corroborate . Furthermore, to establish the petitioner's influence directly, Mr. stated first, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page ll 
that is a leading company; second, that leading companies are influential; and third, that the 
petitioner is an innovator for and, therefore, influential. Mr. discussed the petitioner's 
"wide acceptance as an expert" as a given, rather than establishing that acceptance. 
The director revoked the approval of the petition on January 23, 2014, stating that the petitioner had 
"not submitted evidence as to [the] fact of [her] previous documented achievements" or corroborated 
the factual claims in the submitted letters. The director found that the petitioner had not established 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence, and that therefore the petition . should not have been 
approved. 
The appellate brief includes the contention that the director revoked the approval of the petition 
"[f]or no apparent reason" even though the petitioner "submitted substantial evidence in the form of 
letters from persons familiar with her work as well as independent objective evidence from an expert 
in the petroleum field." The director explained the shortcomings of the letters, and the appellate 
brief does not address or rebut the director's discussion on that issue. 
The brief includes the claim that "[r]evocation must be based on gross and material errors .... Gross 
and material error would require that there be no evidence as to the appellant having some 
influence." The brief includes no citation' to statute, regulation, or binding case law to support these 
claims. The only citation is to an unpublished AAO appellate decision from 2006. That decision did 
not involve a revocation; it dismissed the appeal from the denial of a petition. Moreover, the 
decision did not establish "gross and material error" as a requirement for revocation. Rather, the 
decision referred to the approval of an earlier nonimmigrant petition, stating: 
. . . if the previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same 
unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval would 
constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. Due to the lack of 
required initial evidence in the present record, the AAO finds that the director was 
justified in departing from the previous nonimmigrant approval by denying the 
present immigrant visa petition. 
The assertion that an earlier "approval would constitute material and gross error" does not mean or 
imply that "material and gross error" is the minimum standard for revocation. Furthermore, the 
petitioner cites no authority to support the claim that revocation is only warranted in the complete 
absence of supporting evidence. 
The brief includes the following passage: 
The Service cited Sussex Engineering Ltd V Montgomery 825 F2d 1084 (6th Circ, 
Matter of Ho, 19 I &N, and Matter of Estime, 19 I & N Dec 450 (BIA 1987) for the 
proposition that there is good and sufficient cause to revoke when the evidence of 
record at the time of visa issuance would warrant a denial of the visa petition. Sussex 
says no such thing, has nothing to do with revocation and is inapposite. In any event, 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
that standard, wherever it came from would not apply to this case for the reasons 
stated [in this brief.] 
Matter of Estime involved discrepancies in an interview regarding a visa based on a 
marriage, i.e. suspected fraud. Although the decision articulates the standard cited by 
the service, such standard is in fact dictum, as the matter was remanded to review 
additional evidence and no revocation occurred. In any event, as noted above this is 
not a case where the evidence of record at the time of visa issuance would 
categorically require denial. Compare this case to Matter of Ho in which revocation 
occurred because a Consulate General informed the District Director of concrete facts 
and law which clearly and beyond doubt showed the beneficiary's ineligibility. This 
is in stark contrast to this case which is based on subjective opinion and illegal post 
hoc rulemaking. 
(Emphasis in original.) The petitioner's comments regarding the director's reliance on Sussex have 
some merit, but this does not undermine the decision. Estime does, as noted, include the following 
passage: 
In determining what is "good and sufficient cause" for the issuance of a notice of 
intention to revoke, we ask whether the evidence of record at the time the notice was 
issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would have warranted a denial based on the 
petitioner 's failure to meet his or her burden of proof. 
!d. at 451. That Estime took the form of a remand order does not make the above passage "dictum" 
as asserted. Rather, it is a key finding, so central to the decision that the Board of Immigration 
Appeals (BIA) incorporated it into a headnote. The BIA remanded the decision because the 
revocation order was deficient. The BIA had to explain the standards of a proper revocation in order 
to show how the appealed decision did not meet those standards. As a published precedent decision, 
Estime is binding on all USCIS employees in their administration of the Act. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.3(c). The same is not true ofthe unpublished appellate decision cited in the brief. 
Ho cited and thus reaffirmed Estime; it did not establish or imply that revocation is limited to 
instances of confirmed fraud comparable to the fact pattern in Ho. The BIA stated: 
At the outset, we reject the petitioner 's contention that mere error in judgment on the 
part of the district director in initially approving the visa petition cannot, in and of 
itself, be a proper basis for revoking the approval. The petitioner cites no authority 
for that proposition and we are unaware of any such authority. We believe that the 
realization by the district director that he erred in approving the petition, however 
arrived at, may be good and sufficient cause for revoking his approval, provided the 
district director's revised opinion is supported by the record. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 13 
!d. at 590. Both Ho and Estime established that an improperly approved petition is subject to 
revocation on that basis alone. Differences in case-specific fact patterns do not diminish or nullify 
the precedent decisions' applicability to the present case. The director's determination that the 
petitioner failed to meet her bmden of proof is good and sufficient cause for revocation, and the 
petitioner cannot overcome the grounds for revocation solely by disagreeing with that determination. 
The next assertion in the brief is that the revocation "is a retroactive decision," which "is not favored 
in the law," because the director "applied retroactively a higher standard overall than whatever 
standard the original adjudicator used." As the above discussion shows, the determination that the 
original adjudicator relied on too low a standard is, by itself, sufficient grounds for revocation. The 
statute, at section 205 of the Act, and regulations, at 8 C.F.R. § 205.2, both permit revocation of 
previously approved petitions, and neither the statute nor the regulations limit revocation to instances 
of fraud or deliberate malfeasance by the petitioner. 
In an effort to establish that the petition had been properly approved, the brief includes a discussion 
of some of the letters submitted with the petition, highlighting instances of the petitioner's claimed 
impact within her field: 
The letter of stated that applicant was the 
ever to be entrusted with the responsibility of her native country of Malaysia 
of providing certain expertise while supervising drilling fluids engineers etc. 
Malaysia is after all a Moslem country and appellant's breakthrough in obtaining such 
position implicitly has influence on her field - which carries out activities in Moslem 
countries all over the world. 
The same author . . . stated that a technical paper appellant authored has become a 
"Go-To" technical reference for countless engineers and that the made a significant 
contribution to the filed [sic] with her design of a 
Mr. stated that the petitioner "was · _ ever to be entrusted 
with [the] responsibility" of supervising certain engineers on a Malaysian drilling rig, but the record 
does not establish that conditions in Malaysia were, up to that time, hostile toward the employment 
of women in that role. Furthermore, the petitioner has not shown that her employment influenced 
employment practices in Malaysia, and even if she had shown this, it would not demonstrate 
influence on the field as a whole. She seeks employment in the United States, where the record does 
not establish or imply gender barriers of the type claimed in Malaysia on appeal. 
The record does not support the assertion that one of the petitioner's papers "has ... become a 'Go­
To' Technical reference for countless .. . engineers in her same field of work." See Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Following passages indicating that both . had stated that the petitioner 
received industry recognition , the brief set forth the assertion: " One cannot be recognized without 
having has [sic] at least some influence." The petitioner provides no support for the assertion that 
recognition presupposes influence. Recognition by the industry can be part of a claim of exceptional 
ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) , and by statute, the threshold is lower for exceptional 
ability than for the waiver; section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act subjects aliens of exceptional ability to 
the job offer requirement. Furthermore, as the director noted, the writers of the first letters have all 
worked with the petitioner and therefore they do not show her work has received wider recognition. 
The next contention on appeal concerns letter: 
This letter not only concludes that appellant has had more than nominal influence and 
the reasons for so concluding but that the Service . . . made an error of fact about 
whether applicant's technical writings had as [sic] least some influence. The SPE 
organization [the Society of Professional Engineers] ... was influenced enough to put 
her writings on their database, an act that is NOT routinely done for anyone who 
submits a paper
, see letter of 
Mr. had stated: "The SPE only publishes papers that it believes have technical merit to our 
industry." He also mentioned "the SPE data base" in a separate context. The record contains 
nothing from the SPE to establish the society's editorial standards, but "technical merit," like 
"recognition," is not the same thing as influence, and not all influence is influence on the field as a 
whole. 
The petitioner, via the appellate brief, contends that Mr. assertion corroborates "other 
evidence" in the record. There is no elaboration on this assertion to identify the "other evidence" in 
question. 
The remainder of the brief concerns the question of whether the petitioner had met her burden of 
proof, establishing eligibility through a preponderance of evidence. The chief contention is that, 
because the director did not show that the petitioner 's evidence is not credible, the weight of the 
evidence supports approval of the petition . This assertion disregards the necessity of corroboration 
for claims of fact. The petitioner established the existence of two conference papers, but produced 
no direct evidence of their influence, relying instead on letters from colleagues, referring to the 
papers as influential. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not established the credibility of the statements in the letters. 
asserted that the petitioner "has successfully published a myriad of technical journals." 
Webster's II New College Dictionary (200 1) defines "myriad" as "an extremely large, indefinite 
number" or "a great number." !d. at 724. The record identifies only two such papers. The petitioner 
herself implied the existence of others by referring to the two papers as "samples," but the record 
provides no evidence that other papers exist. The petitioner also implied a high number of citations 
of her work. The approval of the petition rested on this claimed fact pattern, which further inquiry 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
has failed to substantiate. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. If the approval rested in part on a mistaken finding 
that the petitioner had produced a large body of written work, then such a finding would amount to a 
material error of fact, warranting revocation of the erroneous approval. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justifY a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that her influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." Id at 218. See also id at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 
The petitioner has established that she has had a productive and successful career at and that 
she has earned the respect of her colleagues at that company. The petitioner has not, however, 
shown the impact and influence on the field that would qualify her for the national interest waiver. 
The record identifies some of her contributions to her field, but does not substantiate claims as to the 
importance and influence of those contributions. On the basis ofthe evidence submitted, the petitioner 
has not established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the 
national interest of the United States. The petition was approved in error, and that approval was 
properly revoked. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.